U.S. Invades Venezuela, Captures President
We've seen this movie before.
AP (“US strikes Venezuela and says its leader has been captured and flown out of the country“):
The United States hit Venezuela with a “large-scale strike” early Saturday and said its president had been captured and flown out of the country after months of intense pressure on Nicolás Maduro’s government — an extraordinary nighttime operation announced by President Donald Trump on social media hours after the attack.
The legal authority for the strike — and whether Trump consulted Congress beforehand — was not immediately clear. The stunning American military action, which plucked a nation’s sitting leader from office, echoed the U.S. invasion of Panama that led to the surrender and seizure of its leader, Manuel Antonio Noriega, in 1990 — exactly 36 years ago Saturday.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, would face charges after an indictment in New York. Bondi vowed in a social media post that the couple would “soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts.”
Maduro and other Venezuelan officials were indicted in 2020 on “narco-terrorism” conspiracy charges, but it was not previously known that his wife had been and it wasn’t clear if Bondi was referring to a new indictment. The details of the allegations against Flores were not immediately known.
Early Saturday, multiple explosions rang out and low-flying aircraft swept through the Venezuelan capital, as Maduro’s government accused the United States of attacking civilian and military installations, calling it an “imperialist attack” and urging citizens to take to the streets.
With Maduro’s whereabouts not known, the vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, would take power under Venezuelan law. There was no confirmation that had happened, though she did issue a statement after the strike.
“We do not know the whereabouts of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores,” Rodríguez said. “We demand proof of life.”
[…]
The attack itself lasted less than 30 minutes and the explosions — at least seven blasts — sent people rushing into the streets, while others took to social media to report what they’d seen and heard. Some Venezuelan civilians and members of the military were killed, according to Rodríguez, the vice president, without giving a number.
It was not known if there more actions lay ahead, though Trump said in his post that the strikes were carried out “successfully.”
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, posted on X that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had briefed him on the strike and said that Maduro “has been arrested by U.S. personnel to stand trial on criminal charges in the United States.”
NYT (“Live Updates: U.S. Captures Venezuelan Leader, Trump Says“) adds:
A U.S. official said there had been no American casualties in the operation but would not comment on Venezuelan casualties.
In a brief phone interview with The New York Times after the announcement, Mr. Trump celebrated the success of the mission to capture the Venezuelan president. “A lot of good planning and lot of great, great troops and great people,” he said. “It was a brilliant operation, actually.”
When asked if he had sought congressional authority for the operation or what is next for Venezuela, Mr. Trump said he would address those matters during a news conference at 11 a.m. at Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Palm Beach, Fla.
[…]
Since late August, the Pentagon has amassed troops, aircraft and warships in the Caribbean. The U.S. military has attacked many small vessels that U.S. officials maintained were smuggling drugs, killing at least 115 people. And the C.I.A. conducted a drone strike on a port facility in Venezuela last month, according to people briefed on the operation.
A broad range of experts on the use of lethal force have said that the strikes on small vessels amount to illegal extrajudicial killings, but the Trump administration has asserted they are consistent with the laws of war because the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with drug cartels.
Axios (“Trump faces quick criticism from Democrats over Maduro capture“):
President Trump is already being blasted by congressional Democrats for ordering strikes on military targets in Caracas, as part of an overnight operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro.
[…]
The lawmakers say the president blatantly overstepped his authority by not seeking congressional authorization for the operation beforehand.
[…]
Republicans have praised and defended the move, with Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) saying Trump “likely” acted under his authority in Article II of the U.S. Constitution to defend American troops overseas.
“This strike doesn’t represent strength. It’s not sound foreign policy,” said Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) in a post on X, who pointed to polling that shows broad voter disapproval towards armed conflict in Venezuela. The operation, Kim said, “sends a horrible and disturbing signal to other powerful leaders across the globe that targeting a head of state is an acceptable policy for the U.S. government.”
Rep. Darren Soto (D-Fla.), while praising Maduro’s capture as a “major step” towards a free Venezuela, added on X that “Trump’s failure to seek Congressional approval for these strikes raises serious questions about the legality of the mission.”
“Congress did not authorize this war. Venezuela posed no imminent threat to the United States,” said Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.).
Both Soto and Kim noted that top Trump officials previously testified to Congress that the U.S. was not seeking to oust Maduro, and would seek congressional authorization for any ground operations in Venezuela. “Congress must now conduct extensive hearings on the attack and all efforts to restore democracy in Venezuela,” said Soto.
“Nicolas Maduro wasn’t just an illegitimate dictator; he also ran a vast drug-trafficking operation,” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a member of GOP leadership, said in a post on X. “That’s why he was indicted in U.S. court nearly six years ago for drug trafficking and narco-terrorism,” Cotton continued, adding that Muduro would now “face justice for his crimes against our citizens.” “The interim government in Venezuela must now decide whether to continue the drug trafficking and colluding with adversaries like Iran and Cuba or whether to act like a normal nation and return to the civilized world. I urge them to choose wisely,” he said.
The NYT Editorial Board (“Trump’s Attack on Venezuela Is Illegal and Unwise“) sides with the Democrats:
Few people will feel any sympathy for Mr. Maduro. He is undemocratic and repressive, and has destabilized the Western Hemisphere in recent years. The United Nations recently issued a report detailing more than a decade of killings, torture, sexual violence and arbitrary detention by henchmen against his political opponents. He stole Venezuela’s presidential election in 2024. He has fueled economic and political disruption throughout the region by instigating an exodus of nearly eight million migrants.
If there is an overriding lesson of American foreign affairs in the past century, however, it is that attempting to oust even the most deplorable regime can make matters worse. The United States spent 20 years failing to create a stable government in Afghanistan and it replaced a dictatorship in Libya with a fractured state. The tragic consequences of the 2003 war in Iraq continue to beset America and the Middle East. Perhaps most relevant, the United States has sporadically destabilized Latin American countries, including Chile, Cuba, Guatemala and Nicaragua, by trying to oust a government through force.
Mr. Trump has not yet offered a coherent explanation for his actions in Venezuela. He is pushing our country toward an international crisis without valid reasons. If Mr. Trump wants to argue otherwise, the Constitution spells out what he must do: Go to Congress. Without congressional approval, his actions violate United States law.
While I am not a lawyer, I study U.S. defense policy and adjacent areas for a living. I can think of no justification for this action under U.S. or international law.
That said, this is hardly without precedent. When I first saw the headline in the middle of the night, my initial reaction was that we had not openly invaded a Latin American country to enact regime change since the Bay of Pigs fiasco. But then I remembered the operation to seize the Panamanian leader, Manuel Noriega, which was somewhat ironically dubbed JUST CAUSE. (Some wags referred to it as JUST ‘CUZ.) That today marks the 36th anniversary of his surrender to U.S. forces compounds the irony.
Like Noriega, Maduro had been indicted by U.S. courts for drug trafficking. Like Noriega, he retained power after a stolen election. Then, as now, Congress had not been consulted, much less declared war. (They had, however, issued several proclamations calling on Noriega to step down.)
The similarities mostly end there. The United States had a substantial military presence in Panama ahead of the invasion. Noriega had declared a state of war against the United States, and an American Marine, Lieutenant Robert Paz, had been killed by the Panamanian Defense Forces. President George H.W. Bush used that as a proximate cause, arguing that 35,000 American lives were in danger.
Beyond that, whatever the wisdom of invading a country and toppling its leader, Maduro and Noriega are hardly the only cases where the United States has done that. Indeed, we did it somewhat routinely during the Cold War, albeit almost always in clandestine operations with at least some plausible deniability. Since then, we’ve toppled the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya and intervened in support of favored leaders in Iraqi Kurdistan, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and elsewhere. In only a handful of those instances did Congress authorize use of military force; in a few cases, Presidents acted against the express wishes of Congress.
Regardless of the plain meaning of Article I, Section 8, Presidents have long since taken upon themselves the de facto power to commit troops under their Article II role as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. For reasons political and practical, Congress has seldom taken action to claw that power back.
Indeed, the most recent serious effort to do so—the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which passed over President Richard Nixon’s veto—was a de facto admission of their own institutional weakness. With a large standing military at their disposal, Presidents have the first-mover advantage. Further, Congress largely recognizes the utility of allowing Presidents considerable leeway to act in fast-moving situations.
In this particular instance, based on what I know from open sources, it is not at all obvious why immediate action was necessary. The appropriate Congressional committees could have been consulted and asked for authorization. Whether the administration saw some exigency that I’m missing, believed Congress would not in fact give authorization, or simply thought they had the requisite authority to act, time will tell.
That should guarantee him the Nobel Peace Prize.
@EddieInCA: Indeed. If nothing else, this is a tip of the cap to 2025 winner María Corina Machado.
If nothing else happens, this leaves the entire regime in charge and sends a sign to the opposition that they’re on their own when it comes to fair elections.
Also, look for rumors of quid pro quos between Trump and Maduro’s people about being cut in on petroleum in exchange for staying in power.
It is necessary so Trump can be a man on the cheap.
“…you can grab them by the pussy.” just doesn’t do it anymore.
Trump’s Approval Rating Drops to 36%, New Second-Term Low
We are at the “throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks” stage of foreign policy.
cooperation and rules are not things Trump understands. The international rules based order has been replaced by big dog in the meat market.
Anybody know anything about the vice president?
I would caution Ds, this is likely to be popular short term.
Apparently, one of the charges in the indictment is for possession of machine guns against the US. Another is narco-terrorism conspiracy.
There’s a real chance that Maduro manages to make these charges look bogus, especially with Trump and his people doing the prosecuting. He might even beat them, or have them thrown out. Who knows?
A quick trip down memory lane:
That was one month ago.
@Modulo Myself:
Also from the link I posted above:
@drj:
@drj:
I wouldn’t be surprised if El Taco nabbed Maduro just so he could sell him a pardon.
I think the invasion of Panama was about the canal. You don’t want an unreliable dictator in a place where he can obstruct its operation. Venezuela is about oil.
The difference is Bush the elder didn’t nab Noriega to take control of the canal back. While El Taco will certainly take the oil. Oh, likely the extraction will be done by firms like Exxon, but the orange ass will get a huge cut of sales. He’ll even brag about it.
Did I say something about not making predictions?
@Jen:
If only. That poll is over a month old. Nate has his approval at 42%
I asked above if anybody knows anything about the VP. NYT had re-upped year old program notes on half a dozen key players. A year ago they refrained from predicting what would happen if Maduro was somehow removed. I doubt the situation is any clearer this morning.
“We are going to run the country until such time…”
He’s said that three times in a couple of minutes.
@Kathy:
First the oil (of course), then the pardon.
The fucker said so himself:
And:
He is not subtle.
@Kathy:
A company with worldwide operations that plans to continue to operate in various countries is likely to see a reputational downside to participation in stealing Venezuela’s oil. If any company that already has ongoing foreign operations gets involved in that, color me surprised.
The US military followed illegal orders. No declaration of war, authorization of force, or even a note from teacher saying Donny is a good boy. Nada. And now we’re occupying another country and seizing its oil. Grabbing Maduro and charging him with somethingmumblemumblepeasand carrots isn’t justification for a war and occupation.
At least there are a few corners of the MAGA coalition, the anti-foreign adventures crowd, who won’t be happy. What that portends is hard to tell. But the damage is done, regardless, both in the US and abroad.
And if you thought the occupation of Iraq was incompetent…
@drj:
I know. That’s why it wasn’t a prediction.
I thought it best to clarify the matter. Wars are often fought for the publicly stated purpose, but not always. This gets people to become cynical or naive. This war is about taking control of the world’s largest oil reserves.
Meet the new imperialism. Same but more complicated and with better window dressing than the old imperialism.
@Kingdaddy: I suspect the anti foreign adventures conservatives will quickly find reasons this is different. Then if it eventually goes pear shaped they’ll have all always opposed it.
@Kingdaddy:
@gVOR10:
I would bet if El taco got his dick caught in a meat grinder, MAGAts would rush to buy meat grinders.
@Kathy:
The US had already signed and ratified treaties that would transfer the canal over to Panama before the end of 1999. The trigger for the invasion was Panama’s legislature officially declaring war on the US and their military attacking US personnel in the Canal Zone. The war declaration followed the US conducting military exercises which the Panamanians said exceeded what was allowed under the treaties.
As I understand what came out of follow-on investigations, the US military was under orders to harass Panama’s defense forces right up to the treaty limits, with the intent to provoke the Panamanians into attacking in order to justify an invasion. The Canal was never at risk — why would the Panamanians damage an enormously valuable asset they were going to take possession of within a decade? GHWB’s purpose was purely regime change.
@gVOR10: For some reason, I just thought of this clip:
https://youtu.be/Po4adxJxqZk?si=zdy0TmWzzhda1jci
@Kathy:
The vast majority of Venezuela’s reserves are sludge*, with high sulfur content. Just getting it out of the ground requires extra work, and it sells at a significant discount to higher quality benchmarks like WTI or Brent. The only places in the world equipped to refine meaningful volumes of it are the US Gulf Coast and — wait for it — China. The US capacity exists largely because Valero gambled many years ago on a strategy focused on refining cheap, heavy, high-sulfur oil.
I’m willing to make a small bet that when (not if) BYD and the other Chinese companies are allowed to sell their EVs in the US and Europe w/o large tariffs, Venezuela’s sludge become unprofitable to pump.
* Literally. One description is that if you cool what comes out of the wells to room temperature, the consistency is about like peanut butter. It has to be mixed with thinner stuff brought in from elsewhere just to be able to pump it around.
Looks like a very effectively executed operation, it must be said.
I wonder if it indicates suborning of people in the inner circles of the government?
How well any attempt to impose a new governement works is another matter entirely.
imho the best option might be to depart asap (meaning days, if not hours) with a warning to regime loyalists that any attempt to impose “continuity Chavismo” will lead to a repeat.
That might be enough to produce a deal between the opposition, the military and other state elements, and less die-hard regime supporters.
re the oil:
It’s really not a serious reason for controlling Venezuela at all.
It’s a high investment/low margin of return operation.
And obviously vulnerable to guerilla ops.
The revenue is unlikely to cover the costs of ruuning Venezuala and an occuppation force.
The problem is, Trump is just stupid enough to think it IS a good reason.
He’s like the dimwit paleocons back in 2003 who thought US “control” of Iraq oil would somehow be a benefit.
And said similar things himself re Iraq back in 2016.
The “underpants gnomes” approach to geoplitics.
And one which plays well among the MAGA audience, I suspect.
Let’s not forget the Epstein files. The known trump-Epstein connections have been increasing arithmetically and the most damaging ones may be yet to come, based on the administration’s obvious stonewalling and attempts to protect certain kinds of men. We now know things such as, despite having claimed to have never been on Epstein’s plane, trump flew with Epstein on his plane when the two men were the only listed passengers, and another time when the two men and 20-year-old…(redacted) were the only three passengers listed.
I believe that a military conflict with Venezuela was foreseen by many as a wag-the-dog adventure to distract from the Epstein files. Well, here it is, and it’s not going away anytime soon.
@Eusebio:
Oh come, once Venezuelan dog-waggery is done, we have Iranian wog-daggery yet to come.
tbh, I suspect this is more coincidence than conspiracy.
The Epstein files ain’t going away.
And likely, teasing out their implictions and connections, and sifting the wheat from the chaff therein will take time.
The intial focus is going to be on pictures and hopes of a desrired full and testimonied nailing of Trump. (Or re MAGA, Clinton)
And missing that Epstein and Maxwell were running a lot of cover via “charitable foundation” work and general sleazy schmooze for the core operation.
Follow the money.